Wikipedia:Peer review/Dolphin/archive1

Dolphin

Article has seen fairly big changes in recent months and has expanded and improved a lot. Over time, I hope it can become a featured article. Some specific areas of attention are references (are there things that still need references, are the references used ok?) and the human culture section. Are some of the entries perhaps too trivial? Are important appearances in human culture left out? But obviously, ALL comments are welcome and as always, edit where you see fit yourself! BabyNuke 22:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like it! - apart from the taxonomy and long list of dolphins which kinda screws up how the whole page looks. Couldn't that be moved to its own page? Think outside the box 13:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I believe it's one of the things more commonly looked up in the article so it'd be nice to have that in the same page. BabyNuke 20:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then, but could it be moved to the end of the article. I just feel that I'd rather see some pictures of dolphins and how they basically are, before we get more specific. Think outside the box 11:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the current location. I suppose however, some photos could be put next to the species list as examples of various dolphins? BabyNuke 12:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh that would work. Think outside the box 09:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments a quick look over showed some promising material but also some causes of concern.

TOC is a mess, frankly. Headings like Genetic evolution and anatomy of dolphins with only one subheading? Break it up with more conventional subheadings. In fact, evolution, taxonomy and genetics should be separate from anatomy/morphology and sense. Likewise more subheadings for behaviour (breeding, play, feeding, social organisation,). Consolidate threats, role in culture and other like things as subheadings of one section called Releationship with humans.
I agree that the species list should be moved to the botom. Most TOL articles folllow this convention.

I see no "convention" here. In the deer article it's roughly in the middle, in the porpoise article it is at the top, in the bird article it is also at the top, in the Cetacea article it is at the bottom. BabyNuke 14:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dolphins entered the water roughly fifty million years ago. Dolphins' ancestors maybe?

Changed. BabyNuke 14:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike most mammals, dolphins do not have hair, but they are born with a few hairs around the tip of their rostrum which they lose after some time adult dophins do not have hair perhaps?

It is clear as it is. BabyNuke 14:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of name aka etemology can be moved to relationship with humans. Start with biology, then move onto human-dolphin aspects.

I would agree, but some other things are clarified in this section also which help in understanding the article, namely which definition of the word is used. BabyNuke 14:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this article, the second definition is used. which refers to Any member of the families Delphinidae and Platanistoidea (oceanic and river dolphins), , yet the taxobox only has Delphinidae. Which is it?

Added Platanistoidea to the taxobox. BabyNuke 14:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrid dolphins can move to genetics/taxonomy/evolution section

They are in the taxonomy section already. BabyNuke 14:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Six species in the family Delphinidae are commonly called "whales" but are strictly speaking dolphins. They are sometimes called "blackfish". A dolphin by any other name would still smell as fishy. If this is an article about the family Delphinidae (and Platanistoidea) then include these 6 species as any other in the taxonomic list.

They are in the taxonomic list already, these are just given special attention as mistakes are commonly made with them. BabyNuke 14:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dolphins are often regarded as one of Earth's most intelligent species, That should be some dolphin species are egarded as amongst the worlds most intellegent animals or something. Dolphins aren't a species.

Changed species to animals. BabyNuke 14:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In behaviour... the section begining Because of their capacity for learning, dolphins have been employed by humans for many purposes can probably go with the sectin on human-dolphin interactions rather than behaviour.

Agreed and done. BabyNuke 14:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feeding sction geneally needs expansion.

Perhaps, will take a little more time to do. BabyNuke 14:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The culture section needs rationalising. Too much info, and it isn't organised to best effect.

Pruned. Organisation in my eyes if fine, it's roughly chronological. BabyNuke 14:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Get rid of the See also section. It isn't FAish and most of it can be inclded in the text.

Done. BabyNuke 14:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that helps some. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: seems too similar in appearance to a number of related articles; based on that I suggested, for example, that list of dolphin species be merged into it. In the alternative, the taxonomy section can be removed and merged into the list of dolphin species article. 69.140.155.148 04:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I blieve the entire list of dolphin species article can be removed. It contains no information that isn't in the dolphin article. BabyNuke 15:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]